| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ralphie" |
| Date: |
08 May 2004 10:14:01 AM |
| Object: |
In defence of "torture". |
I'm frankly sick of the mass hysteria over those nonsense pictures of the
Iraqis being mistreated by US captors.
I can just imagine some poor brutalized ***** rotting in a prison cell in
Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, or for that matter, Pakistan, Nigeria,
Zimbabwe or Peru shedding tears of sympathy for the poor Iraqi prisoners of
the US who were embarrassed and mistreated by being naked in front of women.
There are several issues responsible for making this nonsense into a huge,
international issue.
One is that Arabs hate everyone who isn't an Arab. If these pictures were
taken in a prison in Syria or Egypt no one would give a damn. The attitude
among Arabs would be that it's not their problem, it's the problem of the
people involved and their families. And anyway, they probably did something
wrong to wind up in prison. Big shrug. But because it's outsiders,
Americans, infidels, doing the shaming and humiliating, the Arab world is in
an uproar of rage and anger that Arabs would be so shamed by "outsiders".
Words like "attrocity" and "torture" are being routinely used, with numerous
Arab commentators complaining the Americans are no better than Saddam (who
gouged out people's eyes with spoons, raped women, and put children into
shredders).
Let me tell you what actualy happened in that prison. To begin with, this
was not the work of a few perverted "bad apples" abusing prisoners. I don't
believe that for a second. They were open and casual and care free about
what they were doing, which makes it obvious they had no fear whatever of
punishment. So their officers damned well know what was going on, and
tolerated it. As for the inspiration, I believe the former commander of
these MP reservists was being honest when she blamed regular army
intelligence officers.
Think about it. You're a reservist from Dogshit Alabama (the women private
shown repeatedly worked in a chicken processing factory in rural Arkansas)
called up and sent to Iraq, not to fight, but to guard prisoners. Along come
these hot shot intelligence officers who tell you they want your help in
softening up these terrorist prisoners, to help prevent attacks on Amerian
soldiers. "Oh we're not going to torture them. Oh no. We're Americans. But
we can soften them up a little".
Private Lindsey England, for example, wasn't a guard at all. She was a paper
pusher who administered records and took fingerprints. What was she doing in
there? Why, she was recruited so there would be women present to make the
Iraqis more ashamed.
And shame was what this was, not torture. And this brings us to the
difference between Arab and Western culture. Those pictures I saw didn't
look like torture. They looked like pledge week at your local fraternity
house. Chances are a lot of frat boys went through worse than that during
their initiations. Nudity just isn't that big a deal in the west, nor is
sex, nor women seeing your weiner. So chances are these American privates,
and even the intelligence officers involved, didn't even think of this as
torture. Oh it was mistreatment, under the manuals, but torture? Nope. Not
by western standards.
But Arabs are totally freaked and bug-eyed by the nudity angle, especially
with women being present. I've read Arab commentators who say many Arab men
would rather die than undergo that kind of abuse, and that physical torture
would be much more preferable. That's hard to credit, but then who
understands these people? Not me. I'm willing to be you'd have to go an
awful long way in any Western country to find men who would rather be
whipped and electroshocked and burned and beaten to death than be stripped
and shamed in front of women, though. Like I said, frat houses do worse to
their pledges.
But even accepting this different cultural judgement, you have to question
how Arab people can ignore the fact that extreme brutality and murder is a
part of daily life in their own prisons and then go all hysterical over what
the Americans did. It's mainly their resentment and distrust of foreigners
working here because, as I said, even with the nudity thing, if these were
Arabs torturing Arabs it wouldn't have raised much fuss.
But to see the likes of Sudan, one of the world's major slave trading
states, engaged in massive bloodletting, ethnic cleansing, mass murder and
torture) criticising the US for abusing prisoners is more than a little
sickening, and makes me think all the democracies should just abandon the UN
and set up another organization closed to the likes of Sudan and North
Korea. Then again, our baying hyenas of the extreme left would probably
rather join with the North Koreans and Sudanese than be part of any
organization dominated by capitalist democracies.
.
|
|
| User: "Don H" |
|
| Title: Re: Lynndie England Fan Club? |
27 May 2004 02:22:06 PM |
|
|
"Every man expects England to do her duty"
=================================
There was a young Private named Lynn,
Whose face wore a mischievous grin.
She was just having fun,
Hand formed into gun,
When some photos dobbed her right in.
There was All-American gal,
On duty; obliging a pal.
But National Disgrace,
Wiped smile off her face,
More Springer, than pompous Roy-al.
There, but for God's grace, goeth thee,
Whether Yank, or poor Iraqi.
Who then is to blame?
Top Brass, or young dame?
When Duty involves Third Degree.
===========================
"Ralphie" <bugger@off.you> wrote in message
news:ZO6nc.378$pp.244@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
I'm frankly sick of the mass hysteria over those nonsense pictures of the
Iraqis being mistreated by US captors.
I can just imagine some poor brutalized ***** rotting in a prison cell
in
Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, or for that matter, Pakistan, Nigeria,
Zimbabwe or Peru shedding tears of sympathy for the poor Iraqi prisoners
of
the US who were embarrassed and mistreated by being naked in front of
women.
There are several issues responsible for making this nonsense into a huge,
international issue.
.............
.
|
|
|
| User: "buggerzion" |
|
| Title: Re: Lynndie England Fan Club? |
28 May 2004 02:39:23 AM |
|
|
Very well said, Don
buggaerzion
"Don H" <donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:ydrtc.13731$L.3177@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Every man expects England to do her duty"
=================================
There was a young Private named Lynn,
Whose face wore a mischievous grin.
She was just having fun,
Hand formed into gun,
When some photos dobbed her right in.
There was All-American gal,
On duty; obliging a pal.
But National Disgrace,
Wiped smile off her face,
More Springer, than pompous Roy-al.
There, but for God's grace, goeth thee,
Whether Yank, or poor Iraqi.
Who then is to blame?
Top Brass, or young dame?
When Duty involves Third Degree.
===========================
"Ralphie" <bugger@off.you> wrote in message
news:ZO6nc.378$pp.244@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
I'm frankly sick of the mass hysteria over those nonsense pictures of
the
Iraqis being mistreated by US captors.
I can just imagine some poor brutalized ***** rotting in a prison cell
in
Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, or for that matter, Pakistan,
Nigeria,
Zimbabwe or Peru shedding tears of sympathy for the poor Iraqi prisoners
of
the US who were embarrassed and mistreated by being naked in front of
women.
There are several issues responsible for making this nonsense into a
huge,
international issue.
.............
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barney" |
|
| Title: Re: In defence of "torture". |
09 May 2004 12:47:13 PM |
|
|
"Ralphie" <bugger@off.you> had
writtennews:ZO6nc.378$pp.244@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
I wonder at what kind of lifestyle you live. Your culture is
different then those who live in Iraq but you judge what is torture
to them. That appears to be the issue. Americans decide what is
right in the countries they decide to invade. While Americans spout
freedom, they seem to lose perspective when they attempt to force
"The American Way" on others!
Perhaps you view pictures dipicting homsxual activites as okay and
those participants forced to pose in those pictures against their will,
as acceptable but remember "Thats your Lifestyle" and not a common view
to the rest of the world.
--
__________________________________________________________
"I'm not into name calling. That's best left to the Morons and
Idiots"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stuart Fenech" |
|
| Title: Re: In defence of "torture". |
08 May 2004 09:44:13 PM |
|
|
"Ralphie" <bugger@off.you> wrote in message
news:ZO6nc.378$pp.244@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
I'm frankly sick of the mass hysteria over those nonsense pictures of the
Iraqis being mistreated by US captors.
I can just imagine some poor brutalized ***** rotting in a prison cell
in
Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, or for that matter, Pakistan, Nigeria,
Zimbabwe or Peru shedding tears of sympathy for the poor Iraqi prisoners
of
the US who were embarrassed and mistreated by being naked in front of
women.
[Etc]
This is not about the behaviour of other countries, this is about the
behaviour of us and our allies. We are not in control of what happens in
other countries, but we do have a say over the behaviour that those on our
team engage in. The behaviour of other countries in regards to disgusting
actions - call it mistreatment, call it torture, call it whatever you want,
it's just a label - does not make it right for us to engage in similar
behaviour. This is the old 'two wrongs do not make a right'.
If we wish to behave in these ways, and implicitly lower ourselves to the
standard of many other countries than engage in similar behaviours, then
what makes us "us" anymore? Assuming "it is OK because it is us" means
sleeping comfortably at night, but does it make sense? If we are fighting
for what's good and right, but behaving exactly the same as the people we
claim to oppose, then we can achieve nothing but victory. There is no good,
no bad, only victory.
Returning to the point that our actions are to be considered independently
of others. We need to consider whether or not these actions fulfill a
legitimate purpose. The evidence to support this that I have read too date
is weak, compared to the disgusting nature of the abuse. Unless there is
some great benefit to these actions, then they simply cannot be justified.
Not only are the actions difficult to justify logically, but they also have
significant negative effects. When we talk about winning "hearts and minds",
how is that done by behaving this way? The men rounded up here have not
necessarily even committed a crime. How on earth are these actions winning
the hearts and minds of Iraqis? This is an extremely effective way to spread
popular distrust, hatred and destroy cooperation.
Cheers
Stuart
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralphie" |
|
| Title: Re: In defence of "torture". |
08 May 2004 09:54:44 PM |
|
|
"Stuart Fenech" <clocks@humanfrailty.com> wrote in message
news:c7k5tv$g8l$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
"Ralphie" <bugger@off.you> wrote in message
news:ZO6nc.378$pp.244@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
I'm frankly sick of the mass hysteria over those nonsense pictures of
the
Iraqis being mistreated by US captors.
I can just imagine some poor brutalized ***** rotting in a prison cell
in
Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, or for that matter, Pakistan,
Nigeria,
Zimbabwe or Peru shedding tears of sympathy for the poor Iraqi prisoners
of
the US who were embarrassed and mistreated by being naked in front of
women.
[Etc]
This is not about the behaviour of other countries, this is about the
behaviour of us and our allies.
Perhaps, but the US is desperately scrambling to explain itself to people
who routinely practice the most vile forms of torture and murder.
.. The behaviour of other countries in regards to disgusting
actions - call it mistreatment, call it torture, call it whatever you
want,
it's just a label -
No, it's not a "label". Mistreatment is wrong, but torture is infinitely
worse.
Don't believe me? Consider being subjected to mistreatment, then consider
being tortured.
Not only are the actions difficult to justify logically, but they also
have
significant negative effects. When we talk about winning "hearts and
minds",
how is that done by behaving this way?
Are you kidding? Do you think you had *any* chance of winning hearts and
minds in the middle east before this??!
Buddy, they hate your guts. They have hated your guts for years, and they
will continue to hate your guts no matter what you do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stuart Fenech" |
|
| Title: Re: In defence of "torture". |
08 May 2004 10:07:22 PM |
|
|
"Ralphie" <bugger@off.you> wrote in message
news:U3hnc.4645$pp.3604@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
"Stuart Fenech" <clocks@humanfrailty.com> wrote in message
news:c7k5tv$g8l$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
This is not about the behaviour of other countries, this is about the
behaviour of us and our allies.
Perhaps, but the US is desperately scrambling to explain itself to people
who routinely practice the most vile forms of torture and murder.
Well yes, that is silly - but it's a bit of a sidetracking from the
important issue, which is whether we should be doing it in the first place.
. The behaviour of other countries in regards to disgusting
actions - call it mistreatment, call it torture, call it whatever you
want,
it's just a label -
No, it's not a "label". Mistreatment is wrong, but torture is infinitely
worse.
Don't believe me? Consider being subjected to mistreatment, then consider
being tortured.
My comment was in regards to the debate over the actions of the US in Iraq.
The comments were over whether it was mistreatment or torture. Again, I saw
this debate as sidetracking the important issue, as to, whatever exactly we
call what we were doing, it should be done...
Not only are the actions difficult to justify logically, but they also
have
significant negative effects. When we talk about winning "hearts and
minds",
how is that done by behaving this way?
Are you kidding? Do you think you had *any* chance of winning hearts and
minds in the middle east before this??!
Buddy, they hate your guts. They have hated your guts for years, and they
will continue to hate your guts no matter what you do.
So we give up? :-/ I disagree with that sentiment, but it's not relevant.
Again, I feel this is sidetracking the important issue - that unless there
is an exceptionally good reason, we should not be acting the way outlined
with the Iraqi prisoners.
Cheers
Stuart
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fasgnadh" |
|
| Title: Re: In defence of "torture". |
09 May 2004 02:32:13 AM |
|
|
"Ralphie" <bugger@off.you> wrote in message news:<ZO6nc.378$pp.244@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
....
Let me tell you what actualy happened in that prison. To begin with, this
was not the work of a few perverted "bad apples" abusing prisoners. I don't
believe that for a second.
They were open and casual and care free about
what they were doing, which makes it obvious they had no fear whatever of
punishment. So their officers damned well know what was going on, and
tolerated it.
Of course. Secretary Of Defence Rumsfeld had declared
that the Geneva Convention was suspended in Afghanistan and
the Gitmo Gulag. This policy was implemented by Military
Intelligence (sic) officers who gave orders to the current
military scapegoats to 'condition the prisoners for interrogation'
in line with that suspension of decency.
As a consequence of that policy, people are held without trial,
without even charges being laid, they have been beaten to death
and as we now graphically witness, tortured and sexually
abused.
As for the inspiration, I believe the former commander of
these MP reservists was being honest when she blamed regular army
intelligence officers.
Absolutely. So why do you defend it?
And you haven't even heard the worst of it yet, according
even to Rumsfeld, as evidence continues to be supressed
in the ongoing cover-up.
Think about it. You're a reservist from Dogshit Alabama (the women private
shown repeatedly worked in a chicken processing factory in rural Arkansas)
called up and sent to Iraq, not to fight, but to guard prisoners. Along come
these hot shot intelligence officers who tell you they want your help in
softening up these terrorist prisoners, to help prevent attacks on Amerian
soldiers. "Oh we're not going to torture them. Oh no. We're Americans. But
we can soften them up a little".
Private Lindsey England, for example, wasn't a guard at all. She was a paper
pusher who administered records and took fingerprints. What was she doing in
there? Why, she was recruited so there would be women present to make the
Iraqis more ashamed.
But that is just the mild stuff, according to the
Military, and Rumsfeld, the evidence to come relates
to beatings, rape and deaths. How can you compare it
to fraternity initiation?
And shame was what this was, not torture.
But like the military, with there selective leaking
of images, you are choosing the least brutal incidents
described by US military sources!
Sodomising a prisoner with a broom handles is not torture?
Rape is not torture?
Beating prisoners to death is not torture?
And this brings us to the
difference between Arab and Western culture.
Saddam was crude in his brutality, whereas you
lie better and have more powerful media to spin
your ***** excuses for torture?
Look it's simple, Bush Lied, there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq,
No WMD's, it was not an imminent threat to the West,
it just had oil, and was a strategic goal for dominating
the ME.
Demonising the entire Muslim world is what got you into
the mess the USSA finds itself in.. you seem stupidly
stubborn to persist with such feeble minded stereotypes.
What next, your stock speech about bringing "American
Values" to TexIraq? B^p
Well, aren't they now being apologised for all
over the media? "We Never got any training on
how to act like decent folk"
Those pictures I saw didn't look like torture.
That's because you are using your arse as blinkers;
Subject: Torture
Newsgroups: aus.politics, aus.culture.true-blue
Date: 2003-03-07 20:30:23 PST
"Prisoners beaten to death"
- Herald Sun 8/3/2003
"Two prisoners who died while being held for interrogation
at the US military base in Afghanistan had apparently been
beaten, a military pathologist's report has found"
US officials said yesterday that a criminal investigation has begun
into the deaths, which have both been classified as homicides.
The deaths have led to calls for an inquiry into the
interrogation techniques being used at the base where
it is believed the al-Qaida leader, Khalid Sheik
Mohammed, is now also being held.
Former prisoners at the base claim that detainees
are chained to the ceiling, shackled so tightly
that the blood flow stops, kept naked and hooded and
kicked to keep them awake for days on end.
The two men, both Afghans, died last December at
the US forces base in Bagram, north of Kabul.
The autopsies found they had suffered "blunt force injuries"
and classified both deaths as homicides. " - ibid
_________
The BBC has documented innocent people released from Gitmo after being
kidnapped and detained in violation of international law. ALIF KHAN and
SAYED ABASSIN are among those who report being tortured.
"I would describe those techniques as forms of torture."
"I'm using torture in its technical legal sense under the Torture
Convention."
Justice RICHARD GOLDSTONE, UN War Crimes Tribunals, 1994-96
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/panorama/transcripts/insi
deguantanamo.txt
_____________________
"Last week President Bush said that the Australian detainees,
Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks, had been "picked up on the battlefield".
"Habib was nowhere near a battlefield when captured.
"In fact, Mamdouh Habib was detained before the US
invasion of Afghanistan even began.
He was picked up hundreds of kilometres inside Pakistan,
apparently preparing to return to Australia,"
- ABC Four Corners
______________________
* War Criminals
Former Liberal Party of Australia president says Iraq war is criminal
A former Liberal Party president today called for
members of the US-led coalition of the willing to face a
war crimes tribunal.
John Valder, the Liberals' federal president in the mid-1980s,
said there was clear evidence that the war was a criminal act.
"This really was the most criminal act from the outset and now
look where it's got us," Mr Valder told ABC radio.
"I would have thought governments in any country that were
supporting this, be they the United States, Spain, Australia,
Britain or anywhere, should be out on their ear."
Mr Valder said there was scope for a war crimes tribunal.
"They were party to what has turned out to be an open act of
aggression against a third country that was in no way a threat to them," Mr
Valder said.
"Their reasons for going in have proven to be absolutely baseless."
- AAP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fran" |
|
| Title: Re: In defence of "torture". |
09 May 2004 12:51:37 AM |
|
|
"Ralphie" <bugger@off.you> wrote in message news:<ZO6nc.378$pp.244@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
I'm frankly sick of the mass hysteria over those nonsense pictures of the
Iraqis being mistreated by US captors.
There is nothing nonsensical about the images. They make perfect
sense, even to Donald Rumsfeld, who described these as being not as
bad as some not yet in circulation, which HE described as "cruel,
inhuman and sadistic".
One of his aides wanted to leave no doubt "we're talking about rape
and murder here".
One detainee, a journlist caught up in the Tikrit fighting last
November Mr Suheidi al-Baz claims the guards at the prison were keen
to take photographs of the abuse and turned it into a competition.
"They were enjoying taking photographs of the torture. There was a
daily competition to see who could take the most gruesome picture.
"The winner's photo would be stuck on a wall and also put on their
laptop computers as a screensaver."
And just to set the record straight, this is torture by definitions
accpeted in the US. Let's examine the 1949 Convention on POWs to which
the US is a signatory.
Article 13 states:
"Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful
act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously
endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is
prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present
Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to
physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any
kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital
treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
"Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected,
particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against
insults and public curiosity.
"Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited."
see http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/39/a39r046.htm
Then of course there is the 1982 "Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" to which the US
is also a signatory:
A/RES/39/46
10 December 1984
Meeting no. 93
Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the
world,
Signatories have agreed as follows:
PART I
Article 1
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture"
means
any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or
mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as
obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession,
punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is
suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a
third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind,
when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of
or
with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person
acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering
arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
I think what we now know easily meets this standard, and you should
remove your "" from torture in the subject line immediately. This is,
the US DEFINITION of torture. Don't you like it?
I can just imagine some poor brutalized ***** rotting in a prison cell in
Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, or for that matter, Pakistan, Nigeria,
Zimbabwe or Peru shedding tears of sympathy for the poor Iraqi prisoners of
the US who were embarrassed and mistreated by being naked in front of women.
As Rumsfeld acknowledges, much more than this has happened, and in any
event, the US claims to be a civilised country, as distinct from
Ba'athist Syria or Iraq or Islamic Fundamentalist Iran. Pakistan is,
of course, an official ally.
Now that the WMD pretext for invasion has been dispensed with, the
ethical superiority of the US over their ex-client Saddam was the
remaining justification for the invasion. Saddam took a few years to
get the wheels of torture into top gear, despite the help he received
from the US in siezing and staying in power. The US is off to a flying
start, and has set a standard for that any new regime can match.
There are several issues responsible for making this nonsense into a huge,
international issue.
One is that Arabs hate everyone who isn't an Arab. If these pictures were
taken in a prison in Syria or Egypt no one would give a damn. The attitude
among Arabs would be that it's not their problem, it's the problem of the
people involved and their families. And anyway, they probably did something
wrong to wind up in prison. Big shrug. But because it's outsiders,
Americans, infidels, doing the shaming and humiliating, the Arab world is in
an uproar of rage and anger that Arabs would be so shamed by "outsiders".
Words like "attrocity" and "torture" are being routinely used, with numerous
Arab commentators complaining the Americans are no better than Saddam (who
gouged out people's eyes with spoons, raped women, and put children into
shredders).
The last of these claims is disputed as war propaganda, but what you
write is hardly a "defence" of US actions. It's the "they are worse
than us" apology, and last time I looked, those who favoured the war
(as well as those who didn't) regarded ourselves as radically
different in outlook from the squalid places you describe. I can't
recall the US saying at the get go that their benchmark treatment
standard would be that of Syria or Peru.
Let me tell you what actualy happened in that prison. To begin with, this
was not the work of a few perverted "bad apples" abusing prisoners. I don't
believe that for a second. They were open and casual and care free about
what they were doing, which makes it obvious they had no fear whatever of
punishment. So their officers damned well know what was going on, and
tolerated it. As for the inspiration, I believe the former commander of
these MP reservists was being honest when she blamed regular army
intelligence officers.
True
Think about it. You're a reservist from Dogshit Alabama (the women private
shown repeatedly worked in a chicken processing factory in rural Arkansas)
called up and sent to Iraq, not to fight, but to guard prisoners. Along come
these hot shot intelligence officers who tell you they want your help in
softening up these terrorist prisoners, to help prevent attacks on Amerian
soldiers. "Oh we're not going to torture them. Oh no. We're Americans. But
we can soften them up a little".
Private Lindsey England, for example, wasn't a guard at all. She was a paper
pusher who administered records and took fingerprints. What was she doing in
there? Why, she was recruited so there would be women present to make the
Iraqis more ashamed.
And shame was what this was, not torture. And this brings us to the
difference between Arab and Western culture. Those pictures I saw didn't
look like torture. They looked like pledge week at your local fraternity
house. Chances are a lot of frat boys went through worse than that during
their initiations.
This is the Rush Limbaugh defence. And it underscores that, contrary
to whta Bush asserts, this IS what large section of the elite in the
US is all about. According to Rush, this is Skull and Bones stuff.
Indeed, in an episode of popular TV show "Law and Order - SVU"
recently, the drama surrounded bastardisation of pledges at a
fictional frat house. This is widely acknowledged, along with the code
of silence, in the upper echelons of the American elite. It is also
not far from how US prisoners are treated in maximum security in the
US.
Civilised people know that such behaviour is wrong, but their
preparation for life in the service of and as part the elite has
stripped them of all human decency and self-respect. And yet, these
are the people lecturing others on "family values" and "freedom".
But this doesn't make it civilised or acceptable. It says rather that
the inclinations of the US elite are brutal and oppressive and in a
suitable context, they are capable of ANYTHING. How else could so many
of the regimes they back politically and economically be so venal and
callous?
Nudity just isn't that big a deal in the west, nor is
sex, nor women seeing your weiner. So chances are these American privates,
and even the intelligence officers involved, didn't even think of this as
torture. Oh it was mistreatment, under the manuals, but torture? Nope. Not
by western standards.
Yes, by official western standards ... see conventions above.
But Arabs are totally freaked and bug-eyed by the nudity angle, especially
with women being present. I've read Arab commentators who say many Arab men
would rather die than undergo that kind of abuse, and that physical torture
would be much more preferable. That's hard to credit, but then who
understands these people? Not me. I'm willing to be you'd have to go an
awful long way in any Western country to find men who would rather be
whipped and electroshocked and burned and beaten to death than be stripped
and shamed in front of women, though. Like I said, frat houses do worse to
their pledges.
You trivialise and pass over the physical torture, to focus on that
which is most interesting and culturally unremarkable to us -- the
nudity -- and the implict misony that is attached to their culture --
but even on your account, if it is TRUE that they would rather "be
whipped and electroshocked and burned and beaten to death than be
stripped and shamed in front of women" wouldn't that show, by
definition, that what was being done was torture? Some Nepalese yogi
might not find solitary confinement in the dark all that distressing,
and for him it might not be torture, but if for you it is the worst of
all things, worse even than being "whipped and electroshocked and
burned and beaten to death" then it is, for you, torture.
But even accepting this different cultural judgement, you have to question
how Arab people can ignore the fact that extreme brutality and murder is a
part of daily life in their own prisons and then go all hysterical over what
the Americans did. It's mainly their resentment and distrust of foreigners
working here because, as I said, even with the nudity thing, if these were
Arabs torturing Arabs it wouldn't have raised much fuss.
It's probably more accurate to say that we wouldn't have heard about
any fuss that was made, because, by and large, the western media
concerns itself principally with the vicissitudes of life of
westerners. The exception to this general rule concerns the behaviour
of official enemies. During the period of the US-backed Pahlavi
dictatorship in Iran, the Savak operated with a freehand, unfettered
by mass media concern, but when Khomeini came to power, and especially
following the seizure of the US embassy, the western media became far
more interested. Israel's Shin Beth has regularly used torture but
again, the western media is largely uninterested, as it is in
Pakistan, which you cite, or Uzbekistan, where people are boiled
alive, or in Tunisia.
Here of course, there are implications for the success of the US
campaign, and for the treatment of captured westerners, who until now,
seem to have managed to avoid the kind of torture that has been
inflicted on Iraqis, -- so the press is interested.
You have not defended torture. You have merely affirmed that the US is
amongst those states with, at best, a pervasive indifference to the
value of the lives of those who are not middle class westerners.
FRAN
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralphie" |
|
| Title: Re: In defence of "torture". |
09 May 2004 10:34:22 AM |
|
|
"Fran" <franbarlow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:95f168b0.0405082151.31a1750c@posting.google.com...
And just to set the record straight, this is torture by definitions
accpeted in the US. Let's examine the 1949 Convention on POWs to which
the US is a signatory.
Article 13 states:
"Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated.
Do we know these were prisoners of war? It is my impression that they were
not, that they were terrorist suspects or those arrested due to information
they were involved in terrorist attacks. I believe that in order to be a POW
you have to be a member of a recognized group which is involved in war. If
you just go out one day and decide to plant a bomb at the side of the road
that does not make you a POW if caught.
One is that Arabs hate everyone who isn't an Arab. If these pictures
were
taken in a prison in Syria or Egypt no one would give a damn. The
attitude
among Arabs would be that it's not their problem, it's the problem of
the
people involved and their families. And anyway, they probably did
something
wrong to wind up in prison. Big shrug. But because it's outsiders,
Americans, infidels, doing the shaming and humiliating, the Arab world
is in
an uproar of rage and anger that Arabs would be so shamed by
"outsiders".
Words like "attrocity" and "torture" are being routinely used, with
numerous
Arab commentators complaining the Americans are no better than Saddam
(who
gouged out people's eyes with spoons, raped women, and put children into
shredders).
The last of these claims is disputed as war propaganda, but what you
write is hardly a "defence" of US actions.
First, I am not defending these actions. People in this group seem unable to
understand the difference between defending something and putting it into
context. I am merely putting these pictures into context. And my cynical
view is really moer to do with the outraged cries from nations and the
citizens of those nations who do far, far, far far worse, and the "oh my
goodness" cries from liberal westerners who seem unaware that far, far, far,
far, far worse goes on every single day throughout the world. How about a
little sympathy for the prisoners in Russian prisons? Or Syrian prisons? Or
Egyptian prisons?
But Arabs are totally freaked and bug-eyed by the nudity angle,
especially
with women being present. I've read Arab commentators who say many Arab
men
would rather die than undergo that kind of abuse, and that physical
torture
would be much more preferable. That's hard to credit, but then who
understands these people? Not me. I'm willing to be you'd have to go an
awful long way in any Western country to find men who would rather be
whipped and electroshocked and burned and beaten to death than be
stripped
and shamed in front of women, though. Like I said, frat houses do worse
to
their pledges.
You trivialise and pass over the physical torture,
None was shown in the pictures, and I'm speaking about the pictures and the
reaction to the pictures.
to focus on that
which is most interesting and culturally unremarkable to us -- the
nudity -- and the implict misony that is attached to their culture --
but even on your account, if it is TRUE that they would rather "be
whipped and electroshocked and burned and beaten to death than be
stripped and shamed in front of women" wouldn't that show, by
definition, that what was being done was torture?
No, it shows that Arabs are lunatics.
But even accepting this different cultural judgement, you have to
question
how Arab people can ignore the fact that extreme brutality and murder is
a
part of daily life in their own prisons and then go all hysterical over
what
the Americans did. It's mainly their resentment and distrust of
foreigners
working here because, as I said, even with the nudity thing, if these
were
Arabs torturing Arabs it wouldn't have raised much fuss.
It's probably more accurate to say that we wouldn't have heard about
any fuss that was made, because, by and large, the western media
concerns itself principally with the vicissitudes of life of
westerners. The exception to this general rule concerns the behaviour
of official enemies. During the period of the US-backed Pahlavi
dictatorship in Iran, the Savak operated with a freehand, unfettered
by mass media concern, but when Khomeini came to power, and especially
following the seizure of the US embassy, the western media became far
more interested.
Well, you're going off on a tangent here, but I think you're wrong in
several regards. To begin with, you're ignoring the time frame. Yes, the US
media used to ignore such things throughout the world, but they got a lot
more interested over the years as they became less trusting of government.
Certainly they made no bones about the brutality of the Shah's secret
police, and it was in the atmosphere of this that Jimmy Carter basically
refused to defend the Shah and advised him to leave Iran. So yes, the media
were critical of the Shah, and then they continued to be critical of the new
theocracy, which turned out to be every bit as murderous and vicious and
cruel.
Israel's Shin Beth has regularly used torture but
again, the western media is largely uninterested, as it is in
Pakistan, which you cite, or Uzbekistan, where people are boiled
alive, or in Tunisia.
Or Syria? Or Libya? Or Russia? Or North Korea? Torture is commonly used by
virtually all non-democratic nations.
And I'm talking about severe, brutal, bone breaking torture that kills. So I
get a little cynical when I see people going bug eyed over simple nudity and
shame.
You have not defended torture. You have merely affirmed that the US is
amongst those states with, at best, a pervasive indifference to the
value of the lives of those who are not middle class westerners.
Well, the US government is not supposed to be out there looking out for the
world, but looking out for those who elected them to office. Should it be
any differently?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fran" |
|
| Title: Re: In defence of "torture". |
10 May 2004 12:54:35 AM |
|
|
"Ralphie" <bugger@off.you> wrote in message news:<2csnc.7776$pp.1204@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
"Fran" <franbarlow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:95f168b0.0405082151.31a1750c@posting.google.com...
And just to set the record straight, this is torture by definitions
accpeted in the US. Let's examine the 1949 Convention on POWs to which
the US is a signatory.
Article 13 states:
"Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated.
Do we know these were prisoners of war? It is my impression that they were
not, that they were terrorist suspects or those arrested due to information
they were involved in terrorist attacks.
Actually you raise a fair point here ... but it doesn't assist your
position. A number of army officers associated with Abu Ghraib have
asserted that perhasp as many as 60% of those held have nothing
whatever to do with terrorism or insurgency, but have been picked up
on spec and are merely awaiting processing. A number have escaped
probably after bribing local guards, but as administration is so slack
nobody is quite sure how many.
Yet it is also clear that those involved with the insurgency are POWs
regardless of whether they were wearing uniforms at the time -- it's
not as if the Ba'athists are in a position to hand them out, and to
strip them of the protections of the Geneva Conventions on this basis
alone is unreasonable.
Finally, the broader conventions on torture and degrading treatment
that I quoted encompass thse prisoners regardless of their POW status.
I believe that in order to be a POW
you have to be a member of a recognized group which is involved in war. If
you just go out one day and decide to plant a bomb at the side of the road
that does not make you a POW if caught.
That definition would relieve every occupier of their obligations,
simply by defclaring that their enemies were "bandits" as the Russians
have done in Chechnya, and would make the provisions defunct once an
ioccupier seized territory.
Certainly, when the US targets mosques and homes they defend their
action as part of the exigencies of war, and cite military usages and
conventions to that effect. That marks their enemies as not merely
insurgents, but combatants.
One is that Arabs hate everyone who isn't an Arab. If these pictures
were
taken in a prison in Syria or Egypt no one would give a damn. The
attitude
among Arabs would be that it's not their problem, it's the problem of
the
people involved and their families. And anyway, they probably did
something
wrong to wind up in prison. Big shrug. But because it's outsiders,
Americans, infidels, doing the shaming and humiliating, the Arab world
is in
an uproar of rage and anger that Arabs would be so shamed by
"outsiders".
Words like "attrocity" and "torture" are being routinely used, with
numerous
Arab commentators complaining the Americans are no better than Saddam
(who
gouged out people's eyes with spoons, raped women, and put children into
shredders).
The last of these claims is disputed as war propaganda, but what you
write is hardly a "defence" of US actions.
First, I am not defending these actions. People in this group seem unable to
understand the difference between defending something and putting it into
context. I am merely putting these pictures into context. And my cynical
view is really moer to do with the outraged cries from nations and the
citizens of those nations who do far, far, far far worse, and the "oh my
goodness" cries from liberal westerners who seem unaware that far, far, far,
far, far worse goes on every single day throughout the world. How about a
little sympathy for the prisoners in Russian prisons? Or Syrian prisons? Or
Egyptian prisons?
I have empathy for every person suffering abuse, and feel outrage at
every abuser. As I've said many times, the Ba'athist regime was
utterly squalid and indefencible, and not appreciably different in its
practices from many regimes in the region. But one needs to
acknowledge the obvious -- Occupiers come with cultural baggage -- and
the sight of Western occupiers abusing Arabs is not merely brutal, but
surely racist and colonialist as well. Now personally, if I were on
the wrong end of abuse, it wouldn't matter a damn to me who was doing
it, but the bulk of the world makes much of such things. Moreover,
unlike the practices of regimes you cite, the US came to Iraq
asserting that they "had no quarrel with the Iraqi people" or Islam,
or Arabs. They wanted to initiate them into how to live as free
people. The way they have behaved makes an absolute mockery of such
phrases.
But Arabs are totally freaked and bug-eyed by the nudity angle,
especially
with women being present. I've read Arab commentators who say many Arab
men
would rather die than undergo that kind of abuse, and that physical
torture
would be much more preferable. That's hard to credit, but then who
understands these people? Not me. I'm willing to be you'd have to go an
awful long way in any Western country to find men who would rather be
whipped and electroshocked and burned and beaten to death than be
stripped
and shamed in front of women, though. Like I said, frat houses do worse
to
their pledges.
You trivialise and pass over the physical torture,
None was shown in the pictures, and I'm speaking about the pictures and the
reaction to the pictures.
Yes but we have heard from Rumsfeld and Graham about the ones that are
not yet released, and many now regard the pictures as mere pointers to
things that are in Rumsfeld's words "cruel, sadistic and inhuman".
The reaction is to the EVENTS (in which the pictures are mere
authentication).
to focus on that
which is most interesting and culturally unremarkable to us -- the
nudity -- and the implict misony that is attached to their culture --
but even on your account, if it is TRUE that they would rather "be
whipped and electroshocked and burned and beaten to death than be
stripped and shamed in front of women" wouldn't that show, by
definition, that what was being done was torture?
No, it shows that Arabs are lunatics.
It shows that they are culturally different. I don't share their
concerns about nudity, and of course I utterly reject the
religiously-based misogyny that is at the heart of their anxiety, but
that this is felt and real for them can hardly be denied.
But even accepting this different cultural judgement, you have to
question
how Arab people can ignore the fact that extreme brutality and murder is
a
part of daily life in their own prisons and then go all hysterical over
what
the Americans did. It's mainly their resentment and distrust of
foreigners
working here because, as I said, even with the nudity thing, if these
were
Arabs torturing Arabs it wouldn't have raised much fuss.
It's probably more accurate to say that we wouldn't have heard about
any fuss that was made, because, by and large, the western media
concerns itself principally with the vicissitudes of life of
westerners. The exception to this general rule concerns the behaviour
of official enemies. During the period of the US-backed Pahlavi
dictatorship in Iran, the Savak operated with a freehand, unfettered
by mass media concern, but when Khomeini came to power, and especially
following the seizure of the US embassy, the western media became far
more interested.
Well, you're going off on a tangent here, but I think you're wrong in
several regards. To begin with, you're ignoring the time frame. Yes, the US
media used to ignore such things throughout the world, but they got a lot
more interested over the years as they became less trusting of government.
Certainly they made no bones about the brutality of the Shah's secret
police, and it was in the atmosphere of this that Jimmy Carter basically
refused to defend the Shah and advised him to leave Iran. So yes, the media
were critical of the Shah, and then they continued to be critical of the new
theocracy, which turned out to be every bit as murderous and vicious and
cruel.
The information has always been out there, but historically, suffering
in the developing world rarely stays on page 1 for more than a couple
of days -- and when it does, it's typically because the suffering is
occurring in the camp of an official enemy.
Israel's Shin Beth has regularly used torture but
again, the western media is largely uninterested, as it is in
Pakistan, which you cite, or Uzbekistan, where people are boiled
alive, or in Tunisia.
Or Syria? Or Libya? Or Russia? Or North Korea? Torture is commonly used by
virtually all non-democratic nations.
True
And I'm talking about severe, brutal, bone breaking torture that kills. So I
get a little cynical when I see people going bug eyed over simple nudity and
shame.
As I said, that's the lurid interesting part. But breaking chemical
filled bulbs and inserting them into the rectums of people, riding a
70 year old woman like a donkey, standing by as Iraqi guards rape
young boys, dragging the 12 or 13 year old sibling of a detainee
around naked and screaming so that he could hear, systematic rape and
beatings, 25 actual deaths with two marked as murder, an overflowing
system holding large numbers of unprocessed people who could be
innocent. What else will we find out in the coming days?
You're radically understating here.
You have not defended torture. You have merely affirmed that the US is
amongst those states with, at best, a pervasive indifference to the
value of the lives of those who are not middle class westerners.
Well, the US government is not supposed to be out there looking out for the
world, but looking out for those who elected them to office. Should it be
any differently?
That's the most sensible thing you've said. The US should get the hell
out of the place and start looking after its own backyard. Currently,
a total of 360000 US armed services personnel are operating in 120
countries. It's about time they just went home.
FRAN
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralphie" |
|
| Title: Re: In defence of "torture". |
10 May 2004 02:40:55 PM |
|
|
"Fran" <franbarlow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:95f168b0.0405092154.14d7d246@posting.google.com...
"Ralphie" <bugger@off.you> wrote in message
news:<2csnc.7776$pp.1204@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
"Fran" <franbarlow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:95f168b0.0405082151.31a1750c@posting.google.com...
Do we know these were prisoners of war? It is my impression that they
were
not, that they were terrorist suspects or those arrested due to
information
they were involved in terrorist attacks.
Actually you raise a fair point here ... but it doesn't assist your
position. A number of army officers associated with Abu Ghraib have
asserted that perhasp as many as 60% of those held have nothing
whatever to do with terrorism or insurgency, but have been picked up
on spec and are merely awaiting processing.
True. On the other hand, I have seen descriptions of this particular group
as being inhabitants of a high risk cell block, which implies a much higher
degree of certainty about their involement with terrrorism.
A number have escaped
probably after bribing local guards, but as administration is so slack
nobody is quite sure how many.
Below is a link to an excellent article detailing exactly how the abuses
were able to take place, showing how poorly trained the part-time soldier
guards were, how overworked they were and how miserable their working
conditions, and noting the interesting fact that the prison was officially
placed under the control of military intelligence, not the military police.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Artic
le_Type1&c=Article&cid=1084054209009&call_pageid=968332188492&col=9687939721
54
Yet it is also clear that those involved with the insurgency are POWs
regardless of whether they were wearing uniforms at the time -- it's
not as if the Ba'athists are in a position to hand them out,
We don't know that all of those involved are associated with the Ba'athists.
Many, perhaps most are not. Al Quaeda apparently has people involved, and
there are all sorts of would-be martyrs with feverish eyes travelling
crossin the borders from Iran and Syria in order to get their chance at
killing Americans. Then there are the followers of crazy Islamic clerics. Do
you call them prisoners of war?
I believe that in order to be a POW
you have to be a member of a recognized group which is involved in war.
If
you just go out one day and decide to plant a bomb at the side of the
road
that does not make you a POW if caught.
That definition would relieve every occupier of their obligations,
simply by defclaring that their enemies were "bandits" as the Russians
have done in Chechnya, and would make the provisions defunct once an
ioccupier seized territory.
Well once an occupier seizes a territory isn't the official war more or less
over?
Then you might have resistance from a guerrila force, but guerrila forces
are not signatories of conventions. You still would be required to treat
them humanely, but what about the crazy islamic warriors crossing the
borders, belonging to no organization?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fran" |
|
| Title: Re: In defence of "torture". |
11 May 2004 02:46:29 AM |
|
|
"Ralphie" <bugger@off.you> wrote in message news:<bVQnc.14332$n7P1.5910@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
"Fran" <franbarlow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:95f168b0.0405092154.14d7d246@posting.google.com...
"Ralphie" <bugger@off.you> wrote in message
news:<2csnc.7776$pp.1204@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
"Fran" <franbarlow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:95f168b0.0405082151.31a1750c@posting.google.com...
Do we know these were prisoners of war? It is my impression that they
were
not, that they were terrorist suspects or those arrested due to
information
they were involved in terrorist attacks.
Actually you raise a fair point here ... but it doesn't assist your
position. A number of army officers associated with Abu Ghraib have
asserted that perhaps as many as 60% of those held have nothing
whatever to do with terrorism or insurgency, but have been picked up
on spec and are merely awaiting processing.
True. On the other hand, I have seen descriptions of this particular group
as being inhabitants of a high risk cell block, which implies a much higher
degree of certainty about their involement with terrrorism.
The trouble is that there is a complete absence of protocols for the
induction of prisoners, their processing and management while their
status is assessed and as we see, their differentiation from the
remainder of the prison population. In short, the mere fact that they
are their is unreliable as an indicator. The reports I'm reading
suggest that it was a largely random process, and if you are occupying
a country, and shooting up the local neighbourhood, the prospect that
a large proportion of the people you round up won't be all that
friendly is pretty high. And of course if you keep them in what is
effectively admin detention, looked after by people who are untrained
and unsupervised and who see themselves as being at the bottom of the
food chain and who act in the belief that the people they are dealing
with are the spawn of Satan and that they just might be heroes for
helping to prepare them for questioning ...
A number have escaped
probably after bribing local guards, but as administration is so slack
nobody is quite sure how many.
Below is a link to an excellent article detailing exactly how the abuses
were able to take place, showing how poorly trained the part-time soldier
guards were, how overworked they were and how miserable their working
conditions, and noting the interesting fact that the prison was officially
placed under the control of military intelligence, not the military police.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Artic
le_Type1&c=Article&cid=1084054209009&call_pageid=968332188492&col=9687939721
54
That's all very well, but who is responsible for "their miserable
working conditions" or their supervision?
Yet it is also clear that those involved with the insurgency are POWs
regardless of whether they were wearing uniforms at the time -- it's
not as if the Ba'athists are in a position to hand them out,
And in addition, when the Aussies signed up, they hgad a written
agreement that all prisoners would be treated according to the Geneva
Convention, making the definitional problems moot.
We don't know that all of those involved are associated with the Ba'athists.
Many, perhaps most are not. Al Quaeda apparently has people involved, and
there are all sorts of would-be martyrs with feverish eyes travelling
crossing the borders from Iran and Syria in order to get their chance at
killing Americans. Then there are the followers of crazy Islamic clerics. Do
you call them prisoners of war?
If there is a war going on, then yes. Clearly, the US and its allies
are occupying powers. Those resisiting by guerilla tactics are merely
extending the onfield battle. To the best of my knowledge, terms of
surrender have never been agreed, even though Saddam is in the
possession of the Coalition.
I believe that in order to be a POW
you have to be a member of a recognized group which is involved in war.
If
you just go out one day and decide to plant a bomb at the side of the
road
that does not make you a POW if caught.
That definition would relieve every occupier of their obligations,
simply by declaring that their enemies were "bandits" as the Russians
have done in Chechnya, and would make the provisions defunct once an
ioccupier seized territory.
Well once an occupier seizes a territory isn't the official war more or less
over?
Mission accomplished, from the US point of view, no doubt. But the
occupied have some say, surely? The defeated state owes its sovreignty
to its citizens, and for all we know, the citizens don't accept the
occupier's authority and are willing to use violence to force their
departure and recover their control of their territory.
Then you might have resistance from a guerrila force, but guerrila forces
are not signatories of conventions. You still would be required to treat
them humanely, but what about the crazy islamic warriors crossing the
borders, belonging to no organization?
Everyone deserves humane treatment -- even crazy messianic
fundamentalists. It's one of the implications of regarding human life
as intrinsically worthy, and the imposition of unnecessary suffering
as inherently wrong. That's what makes my ethical code superior to
theirs and that of others who think humanity is something doled out
only to people we admire.
FRAN
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kone" |
|
| Title: Re: In defence of "torture". |
10 May 2004 07:41:23 AM |
|
|
First, I am not defending these actions. People in this group seem unable
to understand the difference between defending something and putting it
into context.
Ha, I love the backpedalling here. "I am not defending these actions"....
yeah, I thought they were nothing but harmless college hazing stunts.
Right-wingnuts make me laugh.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenb" |
|
| Title: Re: In defence of "torture". |
08 May 2004 11:03:34 PM |
|
|
"Ralphie" wrote in message:
And shame was what this was, not torture. And this brings us to the
difference between Arab and Western culture. Those pictures I saw didn't
look like torture. They looked like pledge week at your local fraternity
house. Chances are a lot of frat boys went through worse than that during
their initiations. Nudity just isn't that big a deal in the west, nor is
sex, nor women seeing your weiner. So chances are these American privates,
and even the intelligence officers involved, didn't even think of this as
torture. Oh it was mistreatment, under the manuals, but torture? Nope. Not
by western standards.
Call it whatever you want, but your interpretation of western standards
regarding the treatment of POW's seems to be at odds with Article 3 of the
Geneva Convention as posted below.
As for your definition of the word "torture", I'll get back to you on
that when pictures of American and British POW's in Iraq begin appearing on
the world media.
--
Sent to you by Ken at kenwho?@sympatico.ca
Replace "who?" with "b2" to reply by e-mail.
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of
armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat
by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded
on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other
similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading
treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all
the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized
peoples
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kone" |
|
| Title: Re: In defence of "torture". |
08 May 2004 11:53:18 AM |
|
|
And shame was what this was, not torture.
Sorry, but you're a sick sick person.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "A.Melon" |
|
| Title: Re: In defence of "torture". |
08 May 2004 07:49:24 PM |
|
|
I heard a Special Forces guy on the radio last night say torture of
prisoners for information is useless because all it does is get them
to the point where they will tell you what they think you want to hear
just to stop the torture. In other words it just leads you in circles
because they end up telling you what they think you want to hear,
rather then valid intelligence.
That actually made sense when I heard the guy explain it, but I can't
explain it how he said it, but he said 99% of the time torture is
useless for getting useful information out of prisoners.
But I guess if you're in to sadism it will make you feel good or give
you a thrill while you're doing it to the prisoner (whatever it does
for the sadist types, I wouldn't know I'm not into sadism), but for
useful intel, I don't think it does much good
On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:14:01 GMT, "Ralphie" <bugger@off.you> wrote:
I'm frankly sick of the mass hysteria over those nonsense pictures of the
Iraqis being mistreated by US captors.
I can just imagine some poor brutalized ***** rotting in a prison cell in
Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, or for that matter, Pakistan, Nigeria,
Zimbabwe or Peru shedding tears of sympathy for the poor Iraqi prisoners of
the US who were embarrassed and mistreated by being naked in front of women.
There are several issues responsible for making this nonsense into a huge,
international issue.
One is that Arabs hate everyone who isn't an Arab. If these pictures were
taken in a prison in Syria or Egypt no one would give a damn. The attitude
among Arabs would be that it's not their problem, it's the problem of the
people involved and their families. And anyway, they probably did something
wrong to wind up in prison. Big shrug. But because it's outsiders,
Americans, infidels, doing the shaming and humiliating, the Arab world is in
an uproar of rage and anger that Arabs would be so shamed by "outsiders".
Words like "attrocity" and "torture" are being routinely used, with numerous
Arab commentators complaining the Americans are no better than Saddam (who
gouged out people's eyes with spoons, raped women, and put children into
shredders).
Let me tell you what actualy happened in that prison. To begin with, this
was not the work of a few perverted "bad apples" abusing prisoners. I don't
believe that for a second. They were open and casual and care free about
what they were doing, which makes it obvious they had no fear whatever of
punishment. So their officers damned well know what was going on, and
tolerated it. As for the inspiration, I believe the former commander of
these MP reservists was being honest when she blamed regular army
intelligence officers.
Think about it. You're a reservist from Dogshit Alabama (the women private
shown repeatedly worked in a chicken processing factory in rural Arkansas)
called up and sent to Iraq, not to fight, but to guard prisoners. Along come
these hot shot intelligence officers who tell you they want your help in
softening up these terrorist prisoners, to help prevent attacks on Amerian
soldiers. "Oh we're not going to torture them. Oh no. We're Americans. But
we can soften them up a little".
Private Lindsey England, for example, wasn't a guard at all. She was a paper
pusher who administered records and took fingerprints. What was she doing in
there? Why, she was recruited so there would be women present to make the
Iraqis more ashamed.
And shame was what this was, not torture. And this brings us to the
difference between Arab and Western culture. Those pictures I saw didn't
look like torture. They looked like pledge week at your local fraternity
house. Chances are a lot of frat boys went through worse than that during
their initiations. Nudity just isn't that big a deal in the west, nor is
sex, nor women seeing your weiner. So chances are these American privates,
and even the intelligence officers involved, didn't even think of this as
torture. Oh it was mistreatment, under the manuals, but torture? Nope. Not
by western standards.
But Arabs are totally freaked and bug-eyed by the nudity angle, especially
with women being present. I've read Arab commentators who say many Arab men
would rather die than undergo that kind of abuse, and that physical torture
would be much more preferable. That's hard to credit, but then who
understands these people? Not me. I'm willing to be you'd have to go an
awful long way in any Western country to find men who would rather be
whipped and electroshocked and burned and beaten to death than be stripped
and shamed in front of women, though. Like I said, frat houses do worse to
their pledges.
But even accepting this different cultural judgement, you have to question
how Arab people can ignore the fact that extreme brutality and murder is a
part of daily life in their own prisons and then go all hysterical over what
the Americans did. It's mainly their resentment and distrust of foreigners
working here because, as I said, even with the nudity thing, if these were
Arabs torturing Arabs it wouldn't have raised much fuss.
But to see the likes of Sudan, one of the world's major slave trading
states, engaged in massive bloodletting, ethnic cleansing, mass murder and
torture) criticising the US for abusing prisoners is more than a little
sickening, and makes me think all the democracies should just abandon the UN
and set up another organization closed to the likes of Sudan and North
Korea. Then again, our baying hyenas of the extreme left would probably
rather join with the North Koreans and Sudanese than be part of any
organization dominated by capitalist democracies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim" |
|
| Title: Re: In defence of "torture". |
08 May 2004 08:03:00 PM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020708080500000109040504
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
A.Melon wrote:
I heard a Special Forces guy on the radio last night say torture of
prisoners for information is useless because all it does is get them
to the point where they will tell you what they think you want to hear
just to stop the torture. In other words it just leads you in circles
because they end up telling you what they think you want to hear,
rather then valid intelligence.
That actually made sense when I heard the guy explain it, but I can't
explain it how he said it, but he said 99% of the time torture is
useless for getting useful information out of prisoners.
This is well know and might also explain some of the false alarms during
the "war on terror".
But I guess if you're in to sadism it will make you feel good or give
you a thrill while you're doing it to the prisoner (whatever it does
for the sadist types, I wouldn't know I'm not into sadism), but for
useful intel, I don't think it does much good
On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:14:01 GMT, "Ralphie" <bugger@off.you> wrote:
I'm frankly sick of the mass hysteria over those nonsense pictures of the
Iraqis being mistreated by US captors.
I can just imagine some poor brutalized ***** rotting in a prison cell in
Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, or for that matter, Pakistan, Nigeria,
Zimbabwe or Peru shedding tears of sympathy for the poor Iraqi prisoners of
the US who were embarrassed and mistreated by being naked in front of women.
There are several issues responsible for making this nonsense into a huge,
international issue.
One is that Arabs hate everyone who isn't an Arab. If these pictures were
taken in a prison in Syria or Egypt no one would give a damn. The attitude
among Arabs would be that it's not their problem, it's the problem of the
people involved and their families. And anyway, they probably did something
wrong to wind up in prison. Big shrug. But because it's outsiders,
Americans, infidels, doing the shaming and humiliating, the Arab world is in
an uproar of rage and anger that Arabs would be so shamed by "outsiders".
Words like "attrocity" and "torture" are being routinely used, with numerous
Arab commentators complaining the Americans are no better than Saddam (who
gouged out people's eyes with spoons, raped women, and put children into
shredders).
Let me tell you what actualy happened in that prison. To begin with, this
was not the work of a few perverted "bad apples" abusing prisoners. I don't
believe that for a second. They were open and casual and care free about
what they were doing, which makes it obvious they had no fear whatever of
punishment. So their officers damned well know what was going on, and
tolerated it. As for the inspiration, I believe the former commander of
these MP reservists was being honest when she blamed regular army
intelligence officers.
Think about it. You're a reservist from Dogshit Alabama (the women private
shown repeatedly worked in a chicken processing factory in rural Arkansas)
called up and sent to Iraq, not to fight, but to guard prisoners. Along come
these hot shot intelligence officers who tell you they want your help in
softening up these terrorist prisoners, to help prevent attacks on Amerian
soldiers. "Oh we're not going to torture them. Oh no. We're Americans. But
we can soften them up a little".
Private Lindsey England, for example, wasn't a guard at all. She was a paper
pusher who administered records and took fingerprints. What was she doing in
there? Why, she was recruited so there would be women present to make the
Iraqis more ashamed.
And shame was what this was, not torture. And this brings us to the
difference between Arab and Western culture. Those pictures I saw didn't
look like torture. They looked like pledge week at your local fraternity
house. Chances are a lot of frat boys went through worse than that during
their initiations. Nudity just isn't that big a deal in the west, nor is
sex, nor women seeing your weiner. So chances are these American privates,
and even the intelligence officers involved, didn't even think of this as
torture. Oh it was mistreatment, under the manuals, but torture? Nope. Not
by western standards.
But Arabs are totally freaked and bug-eyed by the nudity angle, especially
with women being present. I've read Arab commentators who say many Arab men
would rather die than undergo that kind of abuse, and that physical torture
would be much more preferable. That's hard to credit, but then who
understands these people? Not me. I'm willing to be you'd have to go an
awful long way in any Western country to find men who would rather be
whipped and electroshocked and burned and beaten to death than be stripped
and shamed in front of women, though. Like I said, frat houses do worse to
their pledges.
But even accepting this different cultural judgement, you have to question
how Arab people can ignore the fact that extreme brutality and murder is a
part of daily life in their own prisons and then go all hysterical over what
the Americans did. It's mainly their resentment and distrust of foreigners
working here because, as I said, even with the nudity thing, if these were
Arabs torturing Arabs it wouldn't have raised much fuss.
But to see the likes of Sudan, one of the world's major slave trading
states, engaged in massive bloodletting, ethnic cleansing, mass murder and
torture) criticising the US for abusing prisoners is more than a little
sickening, and makes me think all the democracies should just abandon the UN
and set up another organization closed to the likes of Sudan and North
Korea. Then again, our baying hyenas of the extreme left would probably
rather join with the North Koreans and Sudanese than be part of any
organization dominated by capitalist democracies.
--------------020708080500000109040504
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
A.Melon wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midvlvq90de4q0ltt79vb8bpijjgg15p357rm@4ax.com">
<pre wrap="">I heard a Special Forces guy on the radio last night say torture of
prisoners for information is useless because all it does is get them
to the point where they will tell you what they think you want to hear
just to stop the torture. In other words it just leads you in circles
because they end up telling you what they think you want to hear,
rather then valid intelligence.
That actually made sense when I heard the guy explain it, but I can't
explain it how he said it, but he said 99% of the time torture is
useless for getting useful information out of prisoners.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is well know and might also explain some of the false alarms
during the "war on terror".<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midvlvq90de4q0ltt79vb8bpijjgg15p357rm@4ax.com">
<pre wrap="">
But I guess if you're in to sadism it will make you feel good or give
you a thrill while you're doing it to the prisoner (whatever it does
for the sadist types, I wouldn't know I'm not into sadism), but for
useful intel, I don't think it does much good
On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:14:01 GMT, "Ralphie" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bugger@off.you"><bugger@off.you></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I'm frankly sick of the mass hysteria over those nonsense pictures of the
Iraqis being mistreated by US captors.
I can just imagine some poor brutalized ***** rotting in a prison cell in
Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, or for that matter, Pakistan, Nigeria,
Zimbabwe or Peru shedding tears of sympathy for the poor Iraqi prisoners of
the US who were embarrassed and mistreated by being naked in front of women.
There are several issues responsible for making this nonsense into a huge,
international issue.
One is that Arabs hate everyone who isn't an Arab. If these pictures were
taken in a prison in Syria or Egypt no one would give a damn. The attitude
among Arabs would be that it's not their problem, it's the problem of the
people involved and their families. And anyway, they probably did something
wrong to wind up in prison. Big shrug. But because it's outsiders,
Americans, infidels, doing the shaming and humiliating, the Arab world is in
an uproar of rage and anger that Arabs would be so shamed by "outsiders".
Words like "attrocity" and "torture" are being routinely used, with numerous
Arab commentators complaining the Americans are no better than Saddam (who
gouged out people's eyes with spoons, raped women, and put children into
shredders).
Let me tell you what actualy happened in that prison. To begin with, this
was not the work of a few perverted "bad apples" abusing prisoners. I don't
believe that for a second. They were open and casual and care free about
what they were doing, which makes it obvious they had no fear whatever of
punishment. So their officers damned well know what was going on, and
tolerated it. As for the inspiration, I believe the former commander of
these MP reservists was being honest when she blamed regular army
intelligence officers.
Think about it. You're a reservist from Dogshit Alabama (the women private
shown repeatedly worked in a chicken processing factory in rural Arkansas)
called up and sent to Iraq, not to fight, but to guard prisoners. Along come
these hot shot intelligence officers who tell you they want your help in
softening up these terrorist prisoners, to help prevent attacks on Amerian
soldiers. "Oh we're not going to torture them. Oh no. We're Americans. But
we can soften them up a little".
Private Lindsey England, for example, wasn't a guard at all. She was a paper
pusher who administered records and took fingerprints. What was she doing in
there? Why, she was recruited so there would be women present to make the
Iraqis more ashamed.
And shame was what this was, not torture. And this brings us to the
difference between Arab and Western culture. Those pictures I saw didn't
look like torture. They looked like pledge week at your local fraternity
house. Chances are a lot of frat boys went through worse than that during
their initiations. Nudity just isn't that big a deal in the west, nor is
sex, nor women seeing your weiner. So chances are these American privates,
and even the intelligence officers involved, didn't even think of this as
torture. Oh it was mistreatment, under the manuals, but torture? Nope. Not
by western standards.
But Arabs are totally freaked and bug-eyed by the nudity angle, especially
with women being present. I've read Arab commentators who say many Arab men
would rather die than undergo that kind of abuse, and that physical torture
would be much more preferable. That's hard to credit, but then who
understands these people? Not me. I'm willing to be you'd have to go an
awful long way in any Western country to find men who would rather be
whipped and electroshocked and burned and beaten to death than be stripped
and shamed in front of women, though. Like I said, frat houses do worse to
their pledges.
But even accepting this different cultural judgement, you have to question
how Arab people can ignore the fact that extreme brutality and murder is a
part of daily life in their own prisons and then go all hysterical over what
the Americans did. It's mainly their resentment and distrust of foreigners
working here because, as I said, even with the nudity thing, if these were
Arabs torturing Arabs it wouldn't have raised much fuss.
But to see the likes of Sudan, one of the world's major slave trading
states, engaged in massive bloodletting, ethnic cleansing, mass murder and
torture) criticising the US for abusing prisoners is more than a little
sickening, and makes me think all the democracies should just abandon the UN
and set up another organization closed to the likes of Sudan and North
Korea. Then again, our baying hyenas of the extreme left would probably
rather join with the North Koreans and Sudanese than be part of any
organization dominated by capitalist democracies.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--------------020708080500000109040504--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tyrone Bureski" |
|
| Title: Re: In defence of "torture". |
09 May 2004 11:55:52 AM |
|
|
No the problem is not the prisoners, the problem is the "American Beacon of
Light". The beacon is no longer a beacon of justice but a spotlight of
corruption and injustice. The premise of this venture was to be the Iraqis
saviour, but it has become nothing more than an invasion of a soveriegn
country where the citizenry are killed brutalized and raped, there
treasures, money and oil have been confiscated. Young Iraqi boys being raped
by US contractors. Where is the Beacon of Light?
"Ralphie" <bugger@off.you> wrote in message
news:ZO6nc.378$pp.244@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
I'm frankly sick of the mass hysteria over those nonsense pictures of the
Iraqis being mistreated by US captors.
I can just imagine some poor brutalized ***** rotting in a prison cell
in
Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, or for that matter, Pakistan, Nigeria,
Zimbabwe or Peru shedding tears of sympathy for the poor Iraqi prisoners
of
the US who were embarrassed and mistreated by being naked in front of
women.
There are several issues responsible for making this nonsense into a huge,
international issue.
One is that Arabs hate everyone who isn't an Arab. If these pictures were
taken in a prison in Syria or Egypt no one would give a damn. The attitude
among Arabs would be that it's not their problem, it's the problem of the
people involved and their families. And anyway, they probably did
something
wrong to wind up in prison. Big shrug. But because it's outsiders,
Americans, infidels, doing the shaming and humiliating, the Arab world is
in
an uproar of rage and anger that Arabs would be so shamed by "outsiders".
Words like "attrocity" and "torture" are being routinely used, with
numerous
Arab commentators complaining the Americans are no better than Saddam (who
gouged out people's eyes with spoons, raped women, and put children into
shredders).
Let me tell you what actualy happened in that prison. To begin with, this
was not the work of a few perverted "bad apples" abusing prisoners. I
don't
believe that for a second. They were open and casual and care free about
what they were doing, which makes it obvious they had no fear whatever of
punishment. So their officers damned well know what was going on, and
tolerated it. As for the inspiration, I believe the former commander of
these MP reservists was being honest when she blamed regular army
intelligence officers.
Think about it. You're a reservist from Dogshit Alabama (the women private
shown repeatedly worked in a chicken processing factory in rural Arkansas)
called up and sent to Iraq, not to fight, but to guard prisoners. Along
come
these hot shot intelligence officers who tell you they want your help in
softening up these terrorist prisoners, to help prevent attacks on Amerian
soldiers. "Oh we're not going to torture them. Oh no. We're Americans. But
we can soften them up a little".
Private Lindsey England, for example, wasn't a guard at all. She was a
paper
pusher who administered records and took fingerprints. What was she doing
in
there? Why, she was recruited so there would be women present to make the
Iraqis more ashamed.
And shame was what this was, not torture. And this brings us to the
difference between Arab and Western culture. Those pictures I saw didn't
look like torture. They looked like pledge week at your local fraternity
house. Chances are a lot of frat boys went through worse than that during
their initiations. Nudity just isn't that big a deal in the west, nor is
sex, nor women seeing your weiner. So chances are these American privates,
and even the intelligence officers involved, didn't even think of this as
torture. Oh it was mistreatment, under the manuals, but torture? Nope. Not
by western standards.
But Arabs are totally freaked and bug-eyed by the nudity angle, especially
with women being present. I've read Arab commentators who say many Arab
men
would rather die than undergo that kind of abuse, and that physical
torture
would be much more preferable. That's hard to credit, but then who
understands these people? Not me. I'm willing to be you'd have to go an
awful long way in any Western country to find men who would rather be
whipped and electroshocked and burned and beaten to death than be stripped
and shamed in front of women, though. Like I said, frat houses do worse to
their pledges.
But even accepting this different cultural judgement, you have to question
how Arab people can ignore the fact that extreme brutality and murder is a
part of daily life in their own prisons and then go all hysterical over
what
the Americans did. It's mainly their resentment and distrust of foreigners
working here because, as I said, even with the nudity thing, if these were
Arabs torturing Arabs it wouldn't have raised much fuss.
But to see the likes of Sudan, one of the world's major slave trading
states, engaged in massive bloodletting, ethnic cleansing, mass murder and
torture) criticising the US for abusing prisoners is more than a little
sickening, and makes me think all the democracies should just abandon the
UN
and set up another organization closed to the likes of Sudan and North
Korea. Then again, our baying hyenas of the extreme left would probably
rather join with the North Koreans and Sudanese than be part of any
organization dominated by capitalist democracies.
.
|
|
| |
